As the GP said, you don't trust the client. In an offline or semi-connected scenario, you can still maintain data integrity on the server side. Nothing changes there. If the client chooses the play silly buggers with their own copy of the data, well... that's on them. But when it comes time to sync with the server, the same rules apply as ever did: You perform as much data validation as you need to in order to make sure that one client's actions don't pollute the pool for the others.
It's true that there are edge cases where this might become a problem. One scenario that springs to mind is the use of client data to establish precedence in a queue (e.g. take-out food orders - someone alters location or time data to make sure their order gets made before anyone else's). Software probably can't save you in such cases, but real-life experience will probably teach you to identify those who are gaming the system and you can use other metrics (e.g. CC number, user ID) to mitigate the damage that they do.
There was no solution posted though. If you don't trust the client it doesn't matter if you store the data client side or server side.
That's a remarkably naive thing to say.
In any data-driven app, you never, ever trust the client. You do, however, trust the rules you've put into place to ensure data integrity and the logic you use to enforce them. (Well, 'trust' in the sense that you've tested the hell out of your software.) That way, even if you do have a malicious client, they can't do more harm than you're willing to allow.
If by "far better prices" you mean zero as the only available choice, then how are people supposed to cover the cost of developing high-quality video games or tax preparation software?
By running their own repo/PPA, or paying someone else to broker that service, and only allowing access to paying customers.
To be perfectly clear: I'm not saying you have to use only your distro's repositories. I'm saying that the Debian/RedHat repo model is a way, way better example of secure software delivery than the Apple App Store.
Accountability implies no anonymity.
Anonymity implies no accountability.
It would be hard to discuss one without mentioning the other.
Anonymity (in this context) also implies being judged by nothing but the words you write. It means that you're neither nigger, wop nor kike. It means that you're not male or female. It means that you're neither younger nor older than the company you keep. It means being free to say what you really mean.
If that implies rudeness sometimes from the less sociable among us. So be it.
This half-baked rationale that reduces the argument to 'anonymous users aren't polite' elides over all of the issues that made the Internet the force for freedom that it is. You'd think Americans, for all their failings, would get this. Without anonymity (or rather, pseudonymity), you don't get the Federalist Papers.
We also need to better control the software loaded on our devices (i.e. Apple's App Store model)
... all I could think was, 'No, more like the Linux RPM/Deb model that's only been around for... what? a couple of decades? And which offer far better prices, control and access to the market. So much so that, for all its popularity, Apple's Store is -at best- a pale approximation of a viable software management model."
Point remains... "real people" are muzzled on G+ if they permit ACs, because ACs will spamflood any public discussion.
No, the point doesn't follow at all.
We're talking about pseudonymity, not anonymity. They are not one and the same.
While you can point to countless examples of anti-social account abuse (e.g. sock-puppetry, trolling, etc.), exactly none of the fundamental issues are addressed by Google's 'real name' policy.
There is absolutely nothing about this rule that would stop a spammer or a troll from creating dozens, hundreds or even thousands of plausible-sounding accounts, then unleashing them on the user base. In fact, that's exactly what's happening right now.
Google has not properly thought out the issue of identity. That much is clear. And by indulging in a typical geek fallacy (that a few clear, simple rules will be enough to make human society behave), they've created another problem for themselves, without even beginning to address the first.
If Google wants to limit every person to one account, they can do so. (They'd be wrong on that count, too, but not as much.) But who the fuck are they to tell me what my name should or should not be?
Why not allow both and let the userbase sort out who they do and do not add on their professional (cathedral) and personal (bazaar) accounts?
google won't let us filter out the comment spammers. They'd have to add a flag for each user as "real" or "anonymous coward" and then add a filter flag so we don't have to see the AC/spammers.
You can control who sees your posts in the circles. You cannot, more or less, control who spams your comments, for better or worse.
Circles are unidirectional, not bidirectional like other services.
A typical failure mode would be I add wiedzmin to my circles, and whenever you post, I spamflood your post comments, and there's nothing you can do about it at this time. Needless to say, I'm not going to behave like that using my real name, so you need not worry. Allowing an infinite collection of ACs in would only make it worse.
cooooool . i like this post:)))) i circle u if u too
The spamflood has already started. The biggest mistake Google is making is assuming that the owner of the account is the spammer (or conversely that the spammer actually cares about the fate of the account). That hasn't been true of email spam for years now, and it's not true of Google+ accounts.
Arguments about what constitutes a real name aside, Google has completely missed the boat where the nature of online identity is concerned. They may want a cathedral, but human society is far too bazaar (sorry) for that.
Laugh however much you like about Liberal Arts majors, but this is a classic case of mistakenly believing that an engineering solution exists for every problem.
More likely accounts would mostly be used for post spam than pure harassment. Browse/. and look at the score -5 to 0 posts for a good idea of what anonymous G+ would mostly look like.
What's that you say? Social networking and Git?! Now there's an idea! I'll go set up a new site - I'll call it GitFace! Who's in with me on the IPO in 2 years?
And I'll create the antisocial networking version called GitOuttaMyFace, et voila, between us, we have all of humanity covered.
Well, I guess that leaves the porn site. I'm going to call it... <pimp voice>GitItOn</pimp voice>!
That won't last forever. Computers sold briskly while they became faster each iteration until they finally became fast enough for most home and office uses. Since then, sales of computers have slowed down. Likewise, smartphones are in an explosion of capability which too will end.
I'm not going to argue with your logic, but you need to bear in mind that the power requirements of desktop systems makes them unusable for the majority of the world's population. I just came back from a very isolated village in Vanuatu, where people still cook over open fires, where the houses still have mud floors... and where every household has at least one mobile phone. You can bet your bottom dollar that as Internet and smart phones prices reach commodity levels, there are billions of people who will use them as their primary - and probably sole - means of interacting with the outside world.
So, yes, smart phone sales will flatten eventually, but not before their numbers are at least an order of magnitude larger than those for desktop (and laptop) PCs,
How about the VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas):
http://www.vsointernational.org/
For a while I was thinking about apply to work in Nepal as a computing instructor / network guy
I spent 3 years volunteering with VSO. Of all the volunteer organisations, I found this to be the best,
Tragically, that's not saying much. A small majority of volunteer placements consist of little more than busy work, providing a useful bit of revenue for the host organisation and - sometimes - an extra pair of hands. Think of it as a slightly higher class of internship.
Unfortunately, VSO probably won't even consider a stint of less than 2 years. There are a few exceptions for business volunteers, but I believe 2 years is the standard.
Don't get me wrong, the work they do is great, but Télécoms sans frontières is a first-responder disaster relief organisation. You need to be on call for extended periods, and you need to be able to get on a plane and be on-site within 48 hours. Plus, you need to be expert in the particular systems they're using.
Again: I love these guys and what they do. I'd be volunteering for them already if I didn't live in an inconvenient location (South Pacific). But they are emphatically not appropriate for an aid-tourist.
Going in to train others to do some sort of techincal work is good, but you have to remember that their values and yours won't really mesh, and you can't force people to learn C++ when they really want to use Basic.
I've been living in a Least Developed Country for nearly 8 years now. I've seen a lot of well-intentioned people trying all sorts of things, most of which end up in a shambles within months of completion.
If you're going to be a tourist, just be a tourist. Don't pretend you're anything else. If you really want an authentic experience, there are ways to get that. The simplest is to go to out-of-the-way places. If you want to lend a hand in small ways while you're there, just ask what needs doing. People will likely be shocked at the prospect of a guest even lifting a finger, but with a some smiling persistence, you can get past that.
Above all, never underestimate your own ignorance. You really can't know what life is like there. You can't know the million complicating factors that make obvious solutions impractical. If you're only going to be there for a month or two, you will never be more than a babe in the woods, so don't you dare try to bestow your enlightened point of view on the benighted natives. You'll only end up looking like all the other idiots who have come before.
Stay humble. Sit down, shut up, listen. Then do as you're told. Smile all the time and say thank you for everything.
These old papers weren't published directly on internet in 1923. Someone had to transfer all of them from physical form to digital form, page by page. That's is a huge amount of work. Should we all be entitled to enjoy them free of charge? So who's paying the workers?
Emphatically yes, we should.
I manage technical operations for the Pacific Legal Information Institute, and that's exactly the model we follow. The arguments for free access to critical learning materials is compelling. In our case (legal documents) it can be stated as simply as this: If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then access to the law must be completely free. If it's not, then we live in a society that is fundamentally unjust.
I'll leave it as a (very simple) exercise for the reader to work out how this argument extends to higher learning.
As to the question of who pays - We're donor-funded, because most of our constituent nations (20 in all) are very poor. In Australia, our sibling organisation (the Australasian Legal Information Institute) is largely funded by legal practices and other stakeholders. The same is true of the Canadian Legal Information Institute.
Then when they get rid of him, they will find everything is just the same as it was, because the problem isn't Murdoch, it's the system that rewards him for doing what he does.
Oh, the problem very definitely is Murdoch, in this case. And he very definitely does deserve to be punished, whether by the authorities or by society at large or by some vigilantistic element thereof - or all of the above, for that matter. Ignoring the law for the moment, there is such a concept as justice, and this is one man who deserves a large helping of it.
The fact that society tends to reward sociopathic behaviour is, I agree, a relevant and abiding issue, but we shouldn't let that get in the way of taking down one of the most insidious influences in modern politics.
It's cute how Slashdotters think Linux is the center of the universe.
Linux is not the centre of the universe. Linux is the glue that holds the universe together[*]. Even Windows PCs would be a damn sight less useful if it weren't for the presence of Linux everywhere from Google to your home router.
Linux on the desktop is so statistically insignificant as to be practically non-existent, and platforms like Android are based on APIs that simply run onto of Linux but were written by commercial companies like Google (a proprietary search and advertising company, no less).
That's a non sequitur. Since when does liking Linux - and using it professionally or for fun - have anything to do with its commercialisation? Free is still Free. And for the less dogmatic among us, even proprietary software has a place in the Linux world.
----------------
[*] Albeit in a wonderfully inconsistent, semi-anarchic way. ObXKCD: http://xkcd.com/224/
If someone hot-wires my car, and then rams it into a police station, then I'm not liable. The car manufacturer is not liable. The police are not liable. As a matter of fact, its not even my fault if I left the doors unlocked and the engine running. The person responsible is the bastard that stole it and did the damage.
That might be true for the first half-dozen times the bastard did it. But once the number reaches into the millions, you might want to reconsider the design of the car.
Creator Creates Product.
Creator sells 100x products to Vendor for 1Currency
100 buyers enter the store and instead of paying 1.5C for item scans the item and leaves with their desires satisfied.
As far as that vendor is concerned they had 150C worth of product that is now worthless and they're out 100C in inventory which while not physically vaporized has had the demand vaporized and is essentially worth $0.
Sounds to me like Vendor needs a new business model:
Creator Creates Product.
Creator sells distribution rights to Vendor for 1Currency/Unit
A virtually unlimited number of buyers peruse the contents of the Vendor's online store and pay 1.1C for item by scanning the item and leave with their desires satisfied.
Vendor never gets hurt by inventory overhead, sells a larger volume of Product to a (potentially) larger market. The profit ratio (in terms of value provided) is more equitable, with the majority of the profit going to the party that did the majority of the work.
There's nothing unethical about scanning a bar code to see reviews or better prices, but scanning a code to begin torrenting it is definitely wrong by any objective standard.
Why do you say that? I'm not trolling here; I'm legitimately interested in the particular reasons why you see this as unconditionally unethical and immoral.
And by way of playing the devil's advocate, let me ask you this: If you could scan the barcode, pay a nominal fee and begin downloading immediately, directly from the author - instead of buying it at a significant markup in the store from the distributor, would that still be wrong by any objective standard?
Again, I'm not trolling here. I really am trying to tease out what particularly makes this more reprehensible than a dozen or so related behaviours that are largely considered acceptable - or at least inconsequential enough to cause only passing concern.
Your example about philosophy illustrates the point. Clearly you wanted to do it and enjoyed it. However it is hardly a requirement for CS: otherwise it would be part of the CS course program like calculus.
While these subjects are arguably irrelevant to CS, that's beside the point. They're not part of the CS programme; they are part of a Bachelor's degree.
Those subjects are compulsory for a reason. Others have already made the case for knowledge outside one's area of specialisation, so I won't repeat it. I will add that there are some things which require a more adult mind than the average 18 year-old possesses. Likewise, there is much, much more to the study of English language than mere literacy. If all you get from reading Moll Flanders, The Scarlet Letter or Julius Caesar is a sense of how they spoke back then, you're reading it wrong.
It appears that both you and the submitter are failing to distinguish between advancing one's knowledge in a subject area and qualifying for a degree, which are two different things.
As someone who has no formal qualifications in CS -but who has 4 years of university learning- my advice would be to take the courses you're interested in, if that's what you want and you think it will make you better at what you do. But if it's a degree you want, then you should do what it takes to get a degree, and try to find the value in those subjects you seem to feel are irrelevant to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Then how well does your application work offline?
As the GP said, you don't trust the client. In an offline or semi-connected scenario, you can still maintain data integrity on the server side. Nothing changes there. If the client chooses the play silly buggers with their own copy of the data, well... that's on them. But when it comes time to sync with the server, the same rules apply as ever did: You perform as much data validation as you need to in order to make sure that one client's actions don't pollute the pool for the others.
It's true that there are edge cases where this might become a problem. One scenario that springs to mind is the use of client data to establish precedence in a queue (e.g. take-out food orders - someone alters location or time data to make sure their order gets made before anyone else's). Software probably can't save you in such cases, but real-life experience will probably teach you to identify those who are gaming the system and you can use other metrics (e.g. CC number, user ID) to mitigate the damage that they do.
There was no solution posted though. If you don't trust the client it doesn't matter if you store the data client side or server side.
That's a remarkably naive thing to say.
In any data-driven app, you never, ever trust the client. You do, however, trust the rules you've put into place to ensure data integrity and the logic you use to enforce them. (Well, 'trust' in the sense that you've tested the hell out of your software.) That way, even if you do have a malicious client, they can't do more harm than you're willing to allow.
Android is software. But to make use of Android, especially on a mobile phone, some hardware requirements must be met.
Fine, but what is there that is common to all Android devices that distinguishes them from, say, IOS devices%3
paid shrills
I wasn't aware there was a market for such a thing.
Come on! You mean you've never heard of the Sopranos?!?
If by "far better prices" you mean zero as the only available choice, then how are people supposed to cover the cost of developing high-quality video games or tax preparation software?
By running their own repo/PPA, or paying someone else to broker that service, and only allowing access to paying customers.
To be perfectly clear: I'm not saying you have to use only your distro's repositories. I'm saying that the Debian/RedHat repo model is a way, way better example of secure software delivery than the Apple App Store.
Because they are antonyms of one another.
Accountability implies no anonymity. Anonymity implies no accountability.
It would be hard to discuss one without mentioning the other.
Anonymity (in this context) also implies being judged by nothing but the words you write. It means that you're neither nigger, wop nor kike. It means that you're not male or female. It means that you're neither younger nor older than the company you keep. It means being free to say what you really mean.
If that implies rudeness sometimes from the less sociable among us. So be it.
This half-baked rationale that reduces the argument to 'anonymous users aren't polite' elides over all of the issues that made the Internet the force for freedom that it is. You'd think Americans, for all their failings, would get this. Without anonymity (or rather, pseudonymity), you don't get the Federalist Papers.
indeed. When I saw this quote:
... all I could think was, 'No, more like the Linux RPM/Deb model that's only been around for... what? a couple of decades? And which offer far better prices, control and access to the market. So much so that, for all its popularity, Apple's Store is -at best- a pale approximation of a viable software management model."
Point remains... "real people" are muzzled on G+ if they permit ACs, because ACs will spamflood any public discussion.
No, the point doesn't follow at all.
We're talking about pseudonymity, not anonymity. They are not one and the same.
While you can point to countless examples of anti-social account abuse (e.g. sock-puppetry, trolling, etc.), exactly none of the fundamental issues are addressed by Google's 'real name' policy.
There is absolutely nothing about this rule that would stop a spammer or a troll from creating dozens, hundreds or even thousands of plausible-sounding accounts, then unleashing them on the user base. In fact, that's exactly what's happening right now.
Google has not properly thought out the issue of identity. That much is clear. And by indulging in a typical geek fallacy (that a few clear, simple rules will be enough to make human society behave), they've created another problem for themselves, without even beginning to address the first.
If Google wants to limit every person to one account, they can do so. (They'd be wrong on that count, too, but not as much.) But who the fuck are they to tell me what my name should or should not be?
Why not allow both and let the userbase sort out who they do and do not add on their professional (cathedral) and personal (bazaar) accounts?
google won't let us filter out the comment spammers. They'd have to add a flag for each user as "real" or "anonymous coward" and then add a filter flag so we don't have to see the AC/spammers.
You can control who sees your posts in the circles. You cannot, more or less, control who spams your comments, for better or worse.
Circles are unidirectional, not bidirectional like other services.
A typical failure mode would be I add wiedzmin to my circles, and whenever you post, I spamflood your post comments, and there's nothing you can do about it at this time. Needless to say, I'm not going to behave like that using my real name, so you need not worry. Allowing an infinite collection of ACs in would only make it worse.
cooooool . i like this post :)))) i circle u if u too
The spamflood has already started. The biggest mistake Google is making is assuming that the owner of the account is the spammer (or conversely that the spammer actually cares about the fate of the account). That hasn't been true of email spam for years now, and it's not true of Google+ accounts.
Arguments about what constitutes a real name aside, Google has completely missed the boat where the nature of online identity is concerned. They may want a cathedral, but human society is far too bazaar (sorry) for that.
Laugh however much you like about Liberal Arts majors, but this is a classic case of mistakenly believing that an engineering solution exists for every problem.
More likely accounts would mostly be used for post spam than pure harassment. Browse /. and look at the score -5 to 0 posts for a good idea of what anonymous G+ would mostly look like.
No need. G+ is already looking like that.
What's that you say? Social networking and Git?! Now there's an idea! I'll go set up a new site - I'll call it GitFace! Who's in with me on the IPO in 2 years?
And I'll create the antisocial networking version called GitOuttaMyFace, et voila, between us, we have all of humanity covered.
Well, I guess that leaves the porn site. I'm going to call it... <pimp voice>GitItOn</pimp voice>!
That won't last forever. Computers sold briskly while they became faster each iteration until they finally became fast enough for most home and office uses. Since then, sales of computers have slowed down. Likewise, smartphones are in an explosion of capability which too will end.
I'm not going to argue with your logic, but you need to bear in mind that the power requirements of desktop systems makes them unusable for the majority of the world's population. I just came back from a very isolated village in Vanuatu, where people still cook over open fires, where the houses still have mud floors... and where every household has at least one mobile phone. You can bet your bottom dollar that as Internet and smart phones prices reach commodity levels, there are billions of people who will use them as their primary - and probably sole - means of interacting with the outside world.
So, yes, smart phone sales will flatten eventually, but not before their numbers are at least an order of magnitude larger than those for desktop (and laptop) PCs,
It's only called that because we haven't found a way to make it not true, yet. So no, it's not obvious, it's illuminating.
It's only called that because we haven't found a way to make it not true, yet. So no, it's not obvious, It's illuminating.
I saw what you did there.
Instantly. 8^)
How about the VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas): http://www.vsointernational.org/ For a while I was thinking about apply to work in Nepal as a computing instructor / network guy
I spent 3 years volunteering with VSO. Of all the volunteer organisations, I found this to be the best,
Tragically, that's not saying much. A small majority of volunteer placements consist of little more than busy work, providing a useful bit of revenue for the host organisation and - sometimes - an extra pair of hands. Think of it as a slightly higher class of internship.
Unfortunately, VSO probably won't even consider a stint of less than 2 years. There are a few exceptions for business volunteers, but I believe 2 years is the standard.
Another useful geeky aid organization: Télécoms sans frontières
Er, no.
Don't get me wrong, the work they do is great, but Télécoms sans frontières is a first-responder disaster relief organisation. You need to be on call for extended periods, and you need to be able to get on a plane and be on-site within 48 hours. Plus, you need to be expert in the particular systems they're using.
Again: I love these guys and what they do. I'd be volunteering for them already if I didn't live in an inconvenient location (South Pacific). But they are emphatically not appropriate for an aid-tourist.
Going in to train others to do some sort of techincal work is good, but you have to remember that their values and yours won't really mesh, and you can't force people to learn C++ when they really want to use Basic.
I've been living in a Least Developed Country for nearly 8 years now. I've seen a lot of well-intentioned people trying all sorts of things, most of which end up in a shambles within months of completion.
If you're going to be a tourist, just be a tourist. Don't pretend you're anything else. If you really want an authentic experience, there are ways to get that. The simplest is to go to out-of-the-way places. If you want to lend a hand in small ways while you're there, just ask what needs doing. People will likely be shocked at the prospect of a guest even lifting a finger, but with a some smiling persistence, you can get past that.
Above all, never underestimate your own ignorance. You really can't know what life is like there. You can't know the million complicating factors that make obvious solutions impractical. If you're only going to be there for a month or two, you will never be more than a babe in the woods, so don't you dare try to bestow your enlightened point of view on the benighted natives. You'll only end up looking like all the other idiots who have come before.
Stay humble. Sit down, shut up, listen. Then do as you're told. Smile all the time and say thank you for everything.
These old papers weren't published directly on internet in 1923. Someone had to transfer all of them from physical form to digital form, page by page. That's is a huge amount of work. Should we all be entitled to enjoy them free of charge? So who's paying the workers?
Emphatically yes, we should.
I manage technical operations for the Pacific Legal Information Institute, and that's exactly the model we follow. The arguments for free access to critical learning materials is compelling. In our case (legal documents) it can be stated as simply as this: If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then access to the law must be completely free. If it's not, then we live in a society that is fundamentally unjust.
I'll leave it as a (very simple) exercise for the reader to work out how this argument extends to higher learning.
As to the question of who pays - We're donor-funded, because most of our constituent nations (20 in all) are very poor. In Australia, our sibling organisation (the Australasian Legal Information Institute) is largely funded by legal practices and other stakeholders. The same is true of the Canadian Legal Information Institute.
Our collective manifesto is here.
Then when they get rid of him, they will find everything is just the same as it was, because the problem isn't Murdoch, it's the system that rewards him for doing what he does.
Oh, the problem very definitely is Murdoch, in this case. And he very definitely does deserve to be punished, whether by the authorities or by society at large or by some vigilantistic element thereof - or all of the above, for that matter. Ignoring the law for the moment, there is such a concept as justice, and this is one man who deserves a large helping of it.
The fact that society tends to reward sociopathic behaviour is, I agree, a relevant and abiding issue, but we shouldn't let that get in the way of taking down one of the most insidious influences in modern politics.
It's cute how Slashdotters think Linux is the center of the universe.
Linux is not the centre of the universe. Linux is the glue that holds the universe together[*]. Even Windows PCs would be a damn sight less useful if it weren't for the presence of Linux everywhere from Google to your home router.
Linux on the desktop is so statistically insignificant as to be practically non-existent, and platforms like Android are based on APIs that simply run onto of Linux but were written by commercial companies like Google (a proprietary search and advertising company, no less).
That's a non sequitur. Since when does liking Linux - and using it professionally or for fun - have anything to do with its commercialisation? Free is still Free. And for the less dogmatic among us, even proprietary software has a place in the Linux world.
----------------
[*] Albeit in a wonderfully inconsistent, semi-anarchic way. ObXKCD: http://xkcd.com/224/
It sounds more like an excuse for another stupid W3C marketing acronym to me. Sorry, I need to go and SOAP my OWL now.
That doesn't sound very RESTful....
If someone hot-wires my car, and then rams it into a police station, then I'm not liable. The car manufacturer is not liable. The police are not liable. As a matter of fact, its not even my fault if I left the doors unlocked and the engine running. The person responsible is the bastard that stole it and did the damage.
That might be true for the first half-dozen times the bastard did it. But once the number reaches into the millions, you might want to reconsider the design of the car.
Problem right now is that you are all driving pintos.
"Huddle", however - as a term for a group chat - is a bit silly.
They should call it "Grouphug" instead.
Certainly easier to type than 'Circle Jerk'....
Does anyone (non-retarded) ever come close to reaching their full mental potential?
SHELDON: Well I should hope so. I surpassed your full mental potential in Grade 6!
Creator Creates Product.
Creator sells 100x products to Vendor for 1Currency
100 buyers enter the store and instead of paying 1.5C for item scans the item and leaves with their desires satisfied.
As far as that vendor is concerned they had 150C worth of product that is now worthless and they're out 100C in inventory which while not physically vaporized has had the demand vaporized and is essentially worth $0.
Sounds to me like Vendor needs a new business model:
Creator Creates Product.
Creator sells distribution rights to Vendor for 1Currency/Unit
A virtually unlimited number of buyers peruse the contents of the Vendor's online store and pay 1.1C for item by scanning the item and leave with their desires satisfied.
Vendor never gets hurt by inventory overhead, sells a larger volume of Product to a (potentially) larger market. The profit ratio (in terms of value provided) is more equitable, with the majority of the profit going to the party that did the majority of the work.
There's nothing unethical about scanning a bar code to see reviews or better prices, but scanning a code to begin torrenting it is definitely wrong by any objective standard.
Why do you say that? I'm not trolling here; I'm legitimately interested in the particular reasons why you see this as unconditionally unethical and immoral.
And by way of playing the devil's advocate, let me ask you this: If you could scan the barcode, pay a nominal fee and begin downloading immediately, directly from the author - instead of buying it at a significant markup in the store from the distributor, would that still be wrong by any objective standard?
Again, I'm not trolling here. I really am trying to tease out what particularly makes this more reprehensible than a dozen or so related behaviours that are largely considered acceptable - or at least inconsequential enough to cause only passing concern.
Your example about philosophy illustrates the point. Clearly you wanted to do it and enjoyed it. However it is hardly a requirement for CS: otherwise it would be part of the CS course program like calculus.
While these subjects are arguably irrelevant to CS, that's beside the point. They're not part of the CS programme; they are part of a Bachelor's degree.
Those subjects are compulsory for a reason. Others have already made the case for knowledge outside one's area of specialisation, so I won't repeat it. I will add that there are some things which require a more adult mind than the average 18 year-old possesses. Likewise, there is much, much more to the study of English language than mere literacy. If all you get from reading Moll Flanders, The Scarlet Letter or Julius Caesar is a sense of how they spoke back then, you're reading it wrong.
It appears that both you and the submitter are failing to distinguish between advancing one's knowledge in a subject area and qualifying for a degree, which are two different things.
As someone who has no formal qualifications in CS -but who has 4 years of university learning- my advice would be to take the courses you're interested in, if that's what you want and you think it will make you better at what you do. But if it's a degree you want, then you should do what it takes to get a degree, and try to find the value in those subjects you seem to feel are irrelevant to you.